SENATE 


67th Congress 1 
2d Session / 


Document 
No. 188 


JAPANESE IMMIGRATION 
AND COLONIZATION 


A COUNTER BRIEF 

TO THAT OF MR. V. S. McCLATCHY, SENATE DOCUMENT 
No. 55, SIXTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION 

SUBMITTED 

IN BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA COMMITTEE 
OF JUSTICE AND OTHER CITIZENS 



*2- 2. “ 2L , i# ■ ! 


A 


- •> 


PRESENTED BY MR. KING 

April 20, 1922.—Ordered to be printed 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
1922 















/ 






LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
SgegivBD 

MAY 2S1922 

DOCUMENTS DIVISION 

<>> l *m»rf'ai i. ''nT' i n »t ^ii i iw i« » « « i wi 1 wr n ~ 1 ■ 








JAPANESE IMAIIGRATION AND COLONIZATION. 


MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN COMMITTEE OF JUSTICE. 

Lyman J. Gage, San Diego, formerly Secretary of the Treasury. 
Mrs. C. E. Cumberson, Clear Lake. 

.Payson J. Treat, professor of history, Stanford University. 

Mrs. C. J. Heggerty, San Francisco. 

Dr. David Starr Jordan, chancellor emeritus, Stanford University. 
Lev. James L. Gordon, First Congregational Church, San Fran¬ 
cisco. 

Leroy Wright, State senator, San Diego. 

Bertha E. Kori, Los Angeles. 

Carson C. Cook, general manager Rindge Land & Navigation Co., 
Stockton. 

Miss Alice M. Brown, Sacramento. 

Dr. IT. H. Guy, Berkeley. 

James Tyson, San Francisco. 

George W. Turner, Los Gatos. 

Alfred C. Elkinton, Berkeley, president Philadelphia Quartz Co. 
of California. 

Francis B. Kellogg, Los Angeles. 

L. M. Landsborough, Florin. 

A. R. Rideout, Whittier. 

Mrs. Lauretta Black, Yolo. 

G. P. Hurst, Woodland. 

Grosvenor P. Ayres, San Francisco. 

Mrs. Mary Roberts Coolidge, professor Mills College, Oakland. 
Asa V. Mendenhall, Oakland. 

Rev. Henry Stauffer, Los Angeles. 

Virginia E. Graeff, Hollywood. 

W. S. Alexander, San Francisco. 

Ellen Moore, Pasadena. 

Mrs. Philip H. Dodge, Santa Cruz. 

Prof. Raymond L. Buell, Long Beach. 

Dr. Carl Patton, minister First Congregational Church, Los An¬ 
geles. 

F. C. Horst, San Francisco. 

Richard R. Perkins, general secretary Y. M. C. A., San Fran¬ 
cisco. 

Albert Elliot, San Francisco. 

Dr. H. B. Johnson, Berkeley. 

Guy C. Calden, San Francisco. 

Marion B. Patton, South Pasadena. 

Clarence M. Smith, Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., San 
Francisco. 





2 


JAPANESE IMMIGRATION AND COLONIZATION. 


Dr. E. A. Sturge, San Francisco. 

Dr. Alexander Deers, San Francisco, member executive committee, 
Free Methodist. 

Thomas B. Dozier, San Francisco. 

John P. Irish, Oakland. 

Miss Alice Barrett, Greenwood, Calif. 

Alexander Fiore, 521 L Street, box 149, Sacramento, Calif. 

Miss Margaret B. Curry, 616 Buchanan Street, San Francisco, 
Calif. 

Mrs. J. E. Bell, Almond Hill, Saratoga, Calif. 

Wilmer Sieg, box 602, Sacramento, Calif. 

C. M. Wooster, 320 Phelan Building, San Francisco, Calif. 

Frank A. Guernsey, president Farmers & Merchants Bank, Stock- 
ton, Calif. 

Mrs. Fred Wyman Vaughn, 2211 California' Street, San pran- 
cisco, Calii. 

George A. Atherton. Delta Lands, Stockton, Calif. 

Fred C. Rindge, Stockton, Calif. 

Charles A. Strong, Crocker Bank Building, San Francisco, Calif. 

A. N. Judd, Watsonville, Calif. 

Mrs. S. M. Richardson, Truckee, Calif. 

William C. Allen, Hotel Vendome, San Jose, Calif. 

Miss Sarah Ellis, 1350 Washington Street, San Francisco, Calif. 

Mrs. Adelaide Gail Frost, 1710 East Fourth Street. Long Beach, 
Calif. 

Prof. Roy Malcolm, University of South California, Los Angeles, 
Calif. 

Mrs. Louise C. Maud, Monterey, Calif. 

Mrs. Margaret C. May. 1285 Oak Street, San Francisco, Calif. 

Dr. B. B. Juilly, R. F. D. Box 134 Colma, San Mateo County, 
Calif. 


A. C. Stevens, Lafayette Apartments, Berkeley, Calif. 

Mrs. L. M. Eskridge, 1480 Larkin Street, San Francisco, Calif. 
Mrs. Clara Mahoney, 968 Ellis Street, San Francisco, Calif. 
Florence L. Stephens, attorney at law, 629-630 Western Mutual 
Life Building, Third and Hill, Los Angeles, Calif. 

Charles E. Virden, general manager California Fruit Distribution, 
Sacramento, Calif. 

Mr. A. E. Thurber, Napa, Calif. 

Doctor Blaisdell, president of Pomona College, Pomona, Calif. 


PRESIDENT AND FACULTY OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY. 


Ray Lyman Wilbur. 
E. D. Adams. 

W. H. Car ruth. 

M. S. Wildman. 

C. A. Huston. 

M. R. Kirkwood. 
Raymond M. Alden. 
Payson J. Treat. 
Everett W. Smith. 


John S. P. Tatlock. 
John M. Stillman. 
Edwin A. Cottrell. 

F. M. Russell. 

H. D. Gray. 

P. A. Martin. 

O. L. Elliott. 

Douglas H. Campbell. 
David Starr Jordan. 


JAPANESE IMMIGRATION AND COLONIZATION. 


3 


BUSINESS MEN OF SAN FRANCISCO. 

Wallace M. Alexander, Alexander & Baldwin (Ltd.), San Fran¬ 
cisco. 

Rolla V. Watt, Royal Insurance Co., San Francisco. 

Geo.. I. Cochran, president Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co., 
Los Angeles. 

Lee A. Phillips, vice president Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co., 
Los Angeles. 

Frank Miller, Missi on Inn, Riverside. 

Rev. H. B. Johnson, D. D., Berkeley. 

Dr. Arthur H. Briggs, San Francisco. 

# Rev. J. L. Gordon, D. D., First Congregational Church, San Fran¬ 
cisco. 

Rev. Elbert R. Dille, D. D., Oakland. 

J. A. McGregor, formerly with United States Shipping Board. 
Milton H. Esberg, M. A. Gunst Co., San Francisco. 

Dr. Benjamin Ide Wheeler, president emeritus University of Cali¬ 
fornia. 

Dr. Harvey H. Guy, Berkeley. 

Fred D. Parr, Parr Terminal Co., Oakland. 

Capt. Robert Dollar, Robert Dollar Steamship Co., San Francisco. 

BANKERS, FARMERS, BUSINESS MEN, AND MINISTERS OF STOCKTON. 

W. J. Armanino, real estate, Triolo, Calestini & Co. 

J. A. Baumel, bookkeeper, commission merchant. 

D. W. Braddock, real estate. 

California Delta Farms Co., by George Burton. 

Henry Colberg. 

Wm. Colberg, president Colberg Motor Boats. 

T. E. Connolly, banker. 

Carson C. Cook, Rindge Land & Navigation Co. 

Francis Cutting. 

Lewis H. Delpy. 

E. C. Dickinson, Dickinson-Nelson Co. 

R. M. Dixon, commission merchant. 

Rev. F. L. Donohoo. 

J. T. Fletcher, Empire Barge Co. 

John W. Galway, grain company. 

Frank A. Guernsey, banker. 

Rev. Harley H. Gill. 

Rev. R. W. Harlow. 

Edward Harris, banker. 

Jas. Higgins, commission merchant. 

L. L. Higgins, commission merchant. 

Frank W. Hill. 

Sol D. Klein, commission merchant. 

George W. Leistner. 

E. Lewis, commission merchant. 

Rev. Angus Matheson. 

Laurence E. Moore, manager Colberg Motor Boats. 

John Nichols, president Nichols Transportation Co. 


4 


JAPANESE IMMIGRATION AND COLONIZATION. 


H. F. W. Puchmuller. 

John Raggio, banker. 

W. C. Ramsey, real estate. 

J. W. Schuler, Guernsey Grain Co. 

F. C. Sloan, seed grower. 

Lafayette Smallpage, attorney. 

T. R. Stribley, blacksmith. 

R. B. Teefy, banker. 

B. Walters manager Island Transportation Co. 
A. J. Wheeler, Wheeler Transportation Co. 

E. L. Wilhoit, banker. 

Dr. I. S. Zeimer. 

Dr. Robert R. Hammond. 

Dr. R. T. McGurk. 

Dr. B. F. Walker. 

Dr. Hudson Smythe. 

Dr. E. L. Blackmun. 

J. E. Funk. 

D. C. Stowe. 


COUNTER BRIEF. 

To the Senate of the United States: 

This counter brief is filed in behalf of the California Committee of 
Justice, and other citizens, as above. 

Mr. McClatchy’s brief is composed of personal statements, most 
of which were published by him in his paper, the Sacramento Bee, 
and then quoted by him from the Bee as authority for his repeti¬ 
tion of them. They cover events in Korea, Chine, Siberia, and the 
conduct of Japan in the World War and at the Versailles peace con¬ 
ference. These matters are not relevant in any discussion of what is 
known as the Japanese question in California, which relates solely 
to the treatment of Japanese who are legally domiciled in this 
country and in possession of rights under the treaty and under our 
own Constitution and laws. Sir. McClatchy’s brief is tiresomely 
repetitious, apparently in the belief that a fiction often enough 
repeated becomes a fact and a proper foundation for a national 
policy. 

The real questions involved are: The volume of Japanese popula¬ 
tion in California; the Japanese birth rate here; the observance by 
Japan of the “gentlemen’s agreement ”; and the Japanese freeholds 
and leaseholds upon land in this State. 

Mr. McClatchy and his associates in the anti-Japanese agitation 
here led off with an estimate of California’s Japanese population at 
150,000, and by some of them put at 200,000. To reconcile these 
estimates with the official reports of the national immigration service 
it was charged that great numbers of Japanese had been illegally 
smuggled into the State. To support this it was published on au¬ 
thority of Mr. McClatchy that Mr. John W. Abercrombie, Assistant 
Secretary of Labor, had officially reported to the United States Senate 
that in the year ending June 30, 1919, 9,678 Japanese had been found 
to be here illegally and were deported by our Federal authorities. 


JAPANESE IMMIGRATION AND COLONIZATION. 


5 


Upon investigation it was found that Mr. Abercrombie’s report was 
that in the 11 years ending June 30, 1919, 4,000 aliens of all classes 
had been found illegally in the United States and deported. The 
paper that first published, on Mr. McClatchy’s authority, the 9,678 
story, refused to correct the fiction and would not publish the correct 
report, nor was the correction given circulation by the press of the 
State. 

Jhe State board of control officially reported partly from the 
Immigration Bureau the arrivals and departures, and from the 
State board of health the births, showing a Japanese population in 
1920 of 87,279, stating, however, that this number was reached by 
using “ approximations ’" and “ proportionate ” shares; that is to say, 
using opinions instead of statistics. 

By request of the board of control the Japanese Association of 
America completed a census in March, 1920, showing the popula¬ 
tion to be 78,628. The Federal census in 1920, which was very 
careful and complete, showed a population of 70,196, or a total of 
2 per cent of the whole population <^f the State, which was 3,426,861. 
The difference between the Federal census and the u approxima¬ 
tions ” and “ proportionate ” estimates of the State board of control 
is 17,088. But none of these three reports of population reach the 
100,000 and 150,000 figures of Mr. McClatchy and the anti-Japanese 
agitators. The fact is that the Japanese 2 per cent of our total 
population is so small that there are thousands of people in Cali¬ 
fornia who never saw a Japanese. 

Passing now to the Japanese birth rate. The Federal census shows 
44,364 Japanese males and 25,832 females in the State. From 1908 
to 1920 the total Japanese births in the State were 34,083. In 1920 
alone the white births were 59^,655, or in one year outnumbering the 
Japanese births by 25,572 for the whole preceding period of 12 
years. These figures are from the records of the State board of 
health, which reports through its vital registrar, Mr. Boss, that the 
Japanese birth rate is not excessive. All of these birth statistics 
being official, it is at once evident that our 2 per cent of Japanese 
are not making much headway in outbreeding our 98 per cent of 
non-Japanese people. 

‘Of Mr. McClatchy’s case there remain the “gentlemen's agree¬ 
ment ” and Japanese freeholds and leaseholds. It is worth consid¬ 
ering that if the principle of the “ gentlemen’s agreement ” could 
be used with the governments of all nations from which immigrants 
flock to this country, our immigration policy would be very cheaply 
administered, and with results much more satisfactory, socially and 
economically. ... 

Japan agreed to restrict the migration of her laboring class to 
this country by a drastic limitation based upon her laboring people 
already domiciled here, by permitting migration only to parents, 
wives, or children of her subjects predomiciled, and to those with 
preacquired farming interests, this regulation to be enforced by the 
passport system. Our Immigration Bureau has ever since officially 
testified to the rigid observance of this agreement by the Japanese 
Government. If we could replace our expatriation treaties with all 
other Governments by such an agreement many difficulties would be 
solved. As there is no evidence that Japan has not kept absolute 


6 


JAPANESE IMMIGRATION AND COLONIZATION. 


faith in the “ gentlemen's agreement,” as a party to an honorable 
arrangement, what better result could be expected from an exclusion 
act, to which she is not a party, but which throws all the responsi¬ 
bility upon the United States and in its enforcement will supply 
constant friction between these two nations? We are safe in con¬ 
cluding that an exclusion act is favored by that element amongst 
us that desires to affront Japan and perpetuate hatred and prejudice. 

There remains the matter of Japanese land freeholds and lease¬ 
holds. The official report of the California Board of Control shows 
that in 1920 Japanese, under leasehold and freehold, cultivated l x 6 o 
per cent of the farm land of California. That report fails to deal 
truthfully with the productive character of this land in its primitive 
state. Many leaseholds were idle and uncultivated because of the 
barren quality of the soils. Japanese farmers expend the labor 
and devote the intelligent methods by which such soils are added 
to the productive capacity of the State. The same is true of a large 
part of the Japanese freeholds, consisting of land avoided by white 
farmers. The useful fiction has been created that where Japanese 
farmers occupy land white farmers give up their holdings and re¬ 
treat, so we have man}^ pitiful pictures drawn of the ruin of white 
farmers by the “ usurpation ” of Japanese. But in all the official 
investigations of the question no such distressed white farmer has 
ever been found to give evidence supporting the charge. On the 
other hand, the counties that have largely increased in their white 
rural population are those in which Japanese farmers have acquired 
leaseholds and freeholds. 

When the persecution of the Chinese expelled them from the State, 
our available farm labor was so reduced that 568,000 acres of farm 
land ceased to be cultivated and land values fell. This was the 
economic vacuum that drew in the Japanese, and their expertness as 
intensive farmers was soon exhibited in the rise of land values, and 
land that had fallen to $10 per acre rose in price to hundreds of 
dollars per acre. 

In order to excite alarm and prejudice and hatred against the 
Japanese on the land question, one member of the anti-Japanese 
League published that Japanese had leased 10,000,000 acres in the 
upper part of the Sutter Basin. That tract lies between the Sacra¬ 
mento and Feather Rivers, and contains only 60,000 acres. Later 
the author of the tale corrected it by saying the Japanese leaseholds 
in that basin covered only 10,000 acres. Now, the fact was that no 
Japanese ever leased an acre of land in the Sutter Basin, for the 
reason that the owner, Mr. Armour, had forbidden leasing to them. 
These statements and many like them were the anti-Japanese material 
in the campaign of 1920. But, though the facts were denied pub¬ 
licity by the press of the State, nearly a quarter of a million ox the 
voters voted against the anti-Japanese initiative which denied lease¬ 
holds to the Japanese and tore their children from parental guardian¬ 
ship and committed them to the guardianship of the public adminis¬ 
trator. 

The two foremost newspapers in the expulsion of the Chinese were 
the Los Angeles Times and Mr. McClatchy’s Sacramento Bee. These 
have also been the leading organs in supporting the anti-Japanese 
agitation. But, when Mr. McClatchy turned his newspaper against 


JAPANESE IMMIGRATION AND COLONIZATION. 


7 


the Japanese, he also advocated modification of the Chinese exclusion 
act so as to admit Chinese to replace Japanese, and the Los Angeles 
Times demanded that a million Chinese be admitted to take the place 
of our 70,000 Japanese. In view of these glaring inconsistencies and 
of the facts involved in the controversy, it is no wonder that a ma¬ 
jority of the voters of California have never voted against the Jap¬ 
anese. In 1920 the registered vote of the State was 1,374,184. The 
vote for the anti-Japanese initiative was 668,483; so that 705,701 
voters were indifferent or opposed to the measure. 

For the foregoing reasons we pray the honorable Senate to not 
sacrifice the economic interests of California and international friend¬ 
ship, good will and desirable commercial intercourse for the gratifica¬ 
tion of a minority of our people and the advancement of the selfish 
interests of a few politicians. 







library of congress 



0 011 559 330 4 * 
























